Iraq...what is going to happen and what will Bush/Rove do?

What will this administration actually do regarding Iraq? This is an invitation to lay out - in some detail, please - what you think will happen and why.

I'll begin with the 'why' part.

1) The Bush administration is concerned with - above all else - maintenance of Republican domination of the WH and both houses. As a related proposition...it is actually domestic matters, and not foreign relations or foreign goals that drive this administration except where domestic matters are contingent. Negating 'new deal' policies and values (and 'liberalism' in general) is the ideology in place.

2) The biggest threat (other than serious domestic economic downturn) to that goal is a continuation of, or worsening of, the situation in Iraq FOR AMERICANS THERE. Continuation of, or increase in, American deaths is politically untenable. Iraqi deaths don't much matter. International troop deaths don't much matter.

3) It is soldier deaths that mainly matter, politically. Private enterprisers - 'employees' either military or logistic - are expendable.

4) News coverage is a negative when negatives are happening. Where events are negative, attention will be diverted through various means including outright deceit or bait and switch (eg, the 'turnover' of power to Iraqis changed almost nothing in reality, but in the forwarded portrayal by the administration, significant change and progress towards 'iraqi liberty' was the projected 'reality')

5) Peace and order in Iraq seem very unlikely for some years. Civil war is a real possibility.

6) US forces are in Iraq, and not Darfur or Afghanistan, because this administration believes (perhaps correctly) that middle east oil supplies cannot be allowed to be too far out of US control, for reasons of economic stability. Also, the wealth and power that arises from control of this resource could fall under the control of radical Islamist governments (say, if the Saudi government was to fall). This is why the US is there at all. And possibly nowhere else is the tie between politics and corporate interests (lots of oil people around this administration) so acutely evident.

7) Protection of Israel is the unmentioned elephant. This policy is both ideological (and particularly so for the neoconservatives, though the PR line employed is that even such a suggestion is anti-semitic) and it is strategic...a friendly and stable state in the oil-rich area.

8) Up until now, the Iraqi 'government' has been handpicked by the US and has acted at US bidding. A free election will likely bring in a Shiite government who will ask/instruct the US to get out. That consequence is at odd with administration goals and in line with other administration goals. Getting troops out is good. Losing control of the political situation is not, nor is losing control of the oil supplies.

9) To disperse blame for all that seems likely to go wrong, the US will seek to involve other bodies (UN, Nato) to be or appear in charge of the chaos. Recent kisses towards EU will increase. The hoped for gain will be to present the entire Iraq debacle as an international issue, rewriting history.

*****************

So, I predict the following:

The US will get as many troops out as quickly as they can without losing votes. As votes are the key motivator, and as anything like factual portrayal of events and intentions is important only insofar as there's a danger in being caught out in a lie, they'll cover their tracks with the sort of non-answer answer we know, with ambiguity, and with massive PR efforts to portray the situation in a good light and to downplay all negatives and to attack differing analyses. The conservative media will continue to act as a PR wing for this project. What the WH says, they'll say. The attack-dog stuff will be done by them following leads from the PR boys and girls under Rove.

The events and portrayal will be as follows:

1) "Iraq is now better off", they'll repeat and repeat, regardless of anything..."at least they are free and not being butchered or taken into raperooms by Sadaam and his sons".

2) If things go really badly, as in civil war or continued chaos as now, they will say "We sacrificed our sons and daughters and bravely gave them liberty. It is now up to them to take this chance for freedom and chance for peace and become a free peoples. We can't force freedom at the point of a gun!" (they will say that, and I'll throw up). Mercenary forces, already at one third counting logistics, will be greatly 'invisible', and present far more than PR initiatives will bother to mention.

3) But the US will not leave. That is, they will seek in Iraq above all to maintain control in some effective manner of oil resources and middle east stability (US definition of that) via a military footprint (along with other economic and policy tools, which I don't understand well at all). They will pull out some or even most troops, but suggest that the mission is accomplished and 'our troops are home now'. But that will be a lie.

4) They'll be pulling troops out before the next election in two years. The results of that election will, to some significant degree, determine what they then do and what they say, with an eye to the election at four years. If significant loses are suffered at the polls, they'll open up their policy and PR options to concentrate on repairing domestic damage. If the electoral map looks much the same, they'll continue doing what they are doing.

5) Internal party discord will increase as reality turns uglier (and it will) and as seats begin to look in danger. As no usual vice-presidential heir is in the picture, the nomination drive will be particularly disruptive to Rove's PR strategy of 'single message'. I think this is such a potential problem, that I would not be surprised at all to see Cheney - with real or feigned illness - step down in two years or less so that a chosen heir can be put in place. That will be Fisk. But I think even more likely, if Rove can manage it, he'll keep everyone as much in line as possible, and set Jeb up as the trusted Bush/Reagan heir. That will please the important constituencies because it will guarantee continuance of their goals and policies. McCain is a big problem for Rove, and I think he's the wild card in terms of other party voices. If we see the conservative media begin to start bashing McCain, we'll know Rove thinks him a danger.

6) If Iraq goes badly, and I think that probable, or if domestic issues intervene in a bad way, then we can expect to find, behind curtain number three, a new 'threat' with which to scare the hell out of you guys. Iran is the likely candidate, and that PR effort is already begun.

*****************

Here's a relevant news item from today.